Spoiler alert: I will be talking about plot in this review, so don’t read it if you haven’t seen the movie, or unless you don’t plan on seeing it anyway!
Disney’s “The Princess and the Frog” just came out this past weekend, and I excitedly went to see it. I confess, I am an animated movie lover (similar to how I am a fantasy literature buff, see my blog here—I think I’ve just doubled my nerd quotient, but oh well). I have always been, and I think I always will be. This includes not only Disney/Pixar, but Japanese animation (“anime”) and even the animated films of other movie studios like Dreamworks, Fox, Warner Bros., and even claymation.
Regarding the difference between 2-D and 3-D, I like them both. While 3-D dazzles, it’s hard to “snuggle up” to that kind of animation the same way you can with 2-D. There is something about traditional animation which is warm, nostalgic, and cannot be replaced with the latest technology no matter how spectacular.
To give you an idea of my “taste” (so you know how much to take seriously my perspective), some of my favorite animated movies of late are:
Anything by Pixar (yep, I think they have yet to make a bad movie, though my clear favorites are Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and Up; their less successful ventures are A Bug’s Life and Cars); the second “golden age” of Disney (Little Mermaid, Beauty & the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King); the Ice Age franchise (well, the third one was OK but the first two were fantastic); Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, and Chicken Run (both made by the same company); Veggie Tales (the early years; they went downhill after the Jonah movie); Bolt (the only good non-Pixar Disney animation film in the last five years); Kung Fu Panda (tremendous fun).
Some of my least favorite recent animated movies are:
The Quest for Camelot (the only redeeming feature is that the song “The Prayer” came from the soundtrack); The Road to El Dorado (Elton John’s songs failed in this movie as much as they succeeded in The Lion King); Ants (Woody Allen as a neurotic ant? ugh); Happy Feet (I can’t even believe I’m admitting to having watched it); Beowulf (they butchered the storyline, and I don’t like rotoscoping anyway); the post-Lion King movies (Pocahontas, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules; it got a little better with Lilo & Stitch, Mulan, and Tarzan).
Movies like the Madagascar series and the Tim Burton claymations (The Nightmare Before Christmas, Corpse Bride, Coraline) have their charms and sparkle at times but are not home runs. The Shrek films were hilarious the first time I saw them, but fail to provide lasting fun; watching each once was enough.
The current movie in question, “The Princess and the Frog,” is groundbreaking for two reasons: 1) it is the first African American princess in a Disney movie; 2) it marks a return to traditional hand-drawn animation after a hiatus of 5 years (the dud “Home on the Range” was Disney’s last foray into 2-D animation).
Here are some of my initial reactions to the movie:
-Despite this being the first African American princess, the movie is surprisingly unracial. It doesn’t deal with race per se; there is an acknowledgment that blacks and whites live in different strata of society, but that’s 1920s New Orleans for you. I’m not sure if I like or didn’t like the fact that race wasn’t an issue (like: America is sometimes too overly race-conscious so it’s nice just to talk about people as people; dislike: does it matter that Tiana is black? It almost seems like she could’ve been white and it wouldn’t have changed the storyline much, in which case her being black seems like just political correctness rather than a chance to genuinely affirm the African American community). Interestingly, the movies “Invictus” (about Nelson Mandela and apartheid in South Africa) and “The Blind Side” (about a white family that adopts a black teenager) both just came out too, and they deal a lot more with race issues than The Princess and the Frog did.
-Prince Naveen is funny and likeable (though at times he sounds too much like Antonio Banderas’s Puss-in-Boots from Shrek), but given that he’s from a fictional European country (Maldonia, a cross between Malta and Macedonia—reminds me of the fictional European country of Genovia from The Princess Diaries which is some cross between Geneva and Genoa), is that appropriate in a film that purports to affirm the dignity of African Americans? (i.e. the message that might come across is: every girl’s dream prince is a European.) OK, so they make the prince olive-complected, but he’s clearly some sort of Mediterranean European. Maybe it doesn’t matter in the least. But maybe it does.
-There doesn’t seem to be romantic chemistry between Tiana and Naveen. They seem like good friends, and they are great adventure and dialogue partners. Sparks flying? I didn’t feel it. It wasn’t convincing to me.
-The music is by Randy Newman, not Alan Menken. While I have nothing against Newman (he’s written some good hits, and his nostalgic-sounding songs work perfectly for the Toy Story movies), he’s no Menken. Alan Menken is famous for his never-to-be-forgotten hits like “Under the Sea,” “Be Our Guest,” and “A Whole New World.” Ask nearly anyone, and they can hum/sing each of these songs. I walked out of the theater not being able to hum a single song from The Princess and the Frog. They were spectacular show pieces, suited well for the film, but utterly unrememberable. When the frogs were in the bayou about to kiss, I just longed for them to play “Kiss the Girl” sung by a Caribbean crab! Instead, they gave me a song I can’t remember.
-There was no highlight/climax of the movie similar to the magic carpet ride in Aladdin, or Mufasa’s death in The Lion King. The movie was fine, but at no point did I want to stand up and cheer, or grieve. I wish it yanked on my heartstrings a little more.
-The characters spend most of the movie being frogs. This was perhaps my biggest complaint. They look wonderful as human beings; as frogs, I felt like I was back to watching a Saturday morning kids’ cartoon. More screen-time as humans, please!
-The humor was mostly physical: characters running into things, being hit by sticks, etc. It was a little lowbrow and I wish there could have been a little more sophistication to it. (e.g. “Lefou, I’m afraid I’ve been thinking…” “A dangerous pastime!” “I know…”)
-The animation was gorgeous. Though not slick like 3-D, the hand-drawn 2-D animation has a loveliness and familiarity to it that is irreplaceable. They rendered New Orleans lovingly as well.
-I was just in New Orleans last month for the annual conference of the Evangelical Theological Society, and it was nice to compare the actual experience of New Orleans with Disney’s rendition. I appreciated the references to beignets, the Crescent City, Bananas Foster, etc. all of which I wouldn’t have noticed if I hadn’t just been there. I feel like Disney captured the authentic spirit of the place, if not “Nawlins” in fact.
-The moral of the story is that you must wish upon a star? OK, so they qualified it by saying you must try hard as well. But Evangeline the star had a little too much role in this movie. I almost expected Jiminy Cricket to show up at any time.
-The sidekicks were OK. I didn’t find either Louis the crocodile or Ray the firefly to be that endearing. Though I was a bit surprised that Ray died! That’s new for a Disney cartoon (aside from Bambi’s mother of course). It was nice how they paired up Ray with Evangeline at the end.
-Interestingly, in this movie there is a kindly mother but not a father (well, the father makes a brief appearance in the beginning but is no longer alive when the heroine grows up). This is in contrast to most Disney films in which there is either a father but no mother (think Little Mermaid, Beauty & the Beast, Aladdin) or there is a wicked stepmother/villainess (think Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty). Some say this is due to Walt Disney’s own personal parent issues. Whatever the case, it was nice to see a change in the typical formula.
-The spiritual world is no joke. Unlike other Disney movies in which you can easily dismiss the “bad guy” as kooky or unrealistic, this Shadowman villain (Dr. Facilier) was a little too “real” for my tastes. He basically makes a Faustian deal with these voodoo masks and when he fails in his mission (which demands human blood) his soul is forfeit. It just comes a little too close to spiritual realities for my tastes.
-What drives a good movie is, ultimately, plot. Though I love the 2-D hand-drawn animation, I still liked Pixar movies better than this one because Pixar never compromises on plot. Ever. So, while they are all amazing to look at, they all are deep in substance. I think this movie could’ve done better if it had a better script. Not that it was bad, mind you, but it could’ve shone more brightly than it actually did.
-Final verdict: good, but not great. A classic? Perhaps. A foregone conclusion? Hardly. Perhaps, like Obama, it’s great for just being what it is—groundbreaking for its shattering of racial barriers. However, also like Obama, let’s not start handing out awards until it’s been proven worthy over time.